Philadelphia's gameplan seems to just to role the lines and get the defensive pairings you want out there. Did you decide yet if you're stacking the top pairing?

What's Chicago's game plan? In general and in dealing with Gordie Howe

Last I checked Billy was undecided about what his top 2 D pairings were going to be. I'm going to give him another day to make a decision on that, so I have the correct information when talking about my game plan. I will be sure to address your concerns and any others that get posted.

I really doubt Noble went from being a pansy forward to a hard rock defenseman... let's be realistic here.

I never said he was a pansy. I said he was above average physically and defensively, then Hawkey responded that he thought he was very good in those areas. I believe he has these qualities, just not at a very high level.

I never said he was a pansy. I said he was above average physically and defensively, then Hawkey responded that he thought he was very good in those areas. I believe he has these qualities, just not at a very high level.

It's your demands for proof that he was the same type of player as a forward, that he was as a defenseman, that I take exception to.

What's Chicago's game plan? In general and in dealing with Gordie Howe

In dealing with Howe, Chicago has the advantage of having two left wingers (Noble and Pavelich) who can be effective in checking him. Having two lines that can be effective in a certain checking matchup makes it much easier to contain opposing stars when not on home ice.

Was Pavelich big and strong? Averaged sized checkers are just going to bounce off Howe ( if they don't eat his elbows first)

Using seventies' rough method, Noble comes out to 6'0" 220, and Pavelich to 6'2" 198. Howe comes to 6'3" 235. So, Pavelich was fairly tall, but he isn't very large. Pavelich's shadowing abilities appear to have come from his very strong hockey sense, out-smarting his opponent, and good speed, not overpowering a guy like Joel Otto. I'm not sure how well that would translate to checking a guy like Howe, who relies way more on running you over. I don't think it would be as effective. Unfortunately, we don't have any accounts of these two facing each other because they were teammates in Detroit for all 10 years of Pavelich's career.

Was Pavelich big and strong? Averaged sized checkers are just going to bounce off Howe ( if they don't eat his elbows first)

Wing vs. wing checking is mostly done in transition, and as such has a good deal less to do with raw contests of strength than wing vs. defenseman or (sometimes) center vs. center. Pavelich is not going to be following Howe into the corners in the defensive zone; he's going to hand him off to a defenseman and go pressure the point. It's obviously ideal to check Howe with a big, strong guy like Pulford who can troll him all over the ice, but it's not like Howe is going to crack Pavelich with his elbows (without drawing a penalty) while carrying the puck through the neutral zone.

Salming and Quack are the #1 defensemen here. Neither one is an elite #1, and are more average/lower end #1s. If you put any stock into this, Salming was #22 in the best defensemen project, and Quackenbush tied for 26th. Let's take a look at all star records:

Quackenbush: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6
Salming: 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13

Quackenbush has the better peak at first glance, but you really need to look at the era in which he played. Three of those finishes occurred when the NHL was still in a state of mess after WWII, in 46-47, 47-48, and 48-49. Both of the first place finishes, and one of the 3rd place finishes were in these years. The 3rd place was in 46-47, and the first place finishes were the other 2 years. When you consider this, I think it definitely makes Salming's finishes more impressive. He played in a deeper era with more competition, a larger league, and did not have a depleted talent pool, unlike Quackenbush. Both are good offensive defensemen, I'm guessing Quackenbush's percentages will look better because he played in a more depleted era, and there weren't really many offensive defensemen during the time. But if you look at career adjusted PPG, Salming's is significantly better.

Defensively, they were both strong as well. Salming was more physical compared to Quackenbush, who played more of a positional game. This could be an issue for Quackenbush when facing Gordie Howe. People call him Lidstrom-lite, and Lidstrom's one real issue he has is handling big, strong guys down in the corners and in front of the net. Thankfully for Quackenbush, he's got Ching Johnson to serve that role for him.

Overall, Salming is the better #1 defenseman. He's got a better voting record when you factor in era and competition.

That takes us to Boivin and Johnson. I won't waste my time here, Johnson is better by a very large margin. Both are tenacious hitters, but Johnson's voting record is much better than Boivin's.

First pairings are an advantage to Chicago. This is because the difference between Ching Johnson and Leo Boivin is much larger than the gap between Salming and Quackenbush. But, this is to be expected considering Chicago is stacking their top pairing with the two best defensemen, whereas I am putting my first and fourth best defensemen on my first pairing in order to have a stronger 2nd pairing.

I'm not sure if there's really a way to compared Goodfellow and Ross. I don't like to rely on canon and say one guy is better than the other just because he's consistently drafted above him. But, I don't see any real other way. If it means anything, Goodfellow was ranked #43 on the Top Defensemen project, whereas Ross was not ranked. Both were very good offensive defensemen. At the end of the day, Goodfellow has a proven track record as an elite defenseman at the post-consolidated NHL level. No voting record or awards exists for Ross. I think Goodfellow is the better player.

Reise and Goldham played at basically the same time, so this should be a good comparison. Goldham made 2 all star games based on merit, and Reise made 3. Advantage Reise there. Here's a look at all star voting record:

Goldham: 3, 5, 7, 8
Reise: 3, 4, 11

That 7th place finish for Goldham came in 45-46 when the NHL was significantly depleted, perhaps more than any other war season. Remove the 3rd place finishes, 4th beats 5, and I think an 11th place finish in 53-54 is more impressive than a 7th place finish in 45-46. That gives Goldham an 8th to nothing for Reise. But, we don't have voting beyond the top 4 for some of Reise's best years. But doesn't this apply to Goldham too, since they played at the same time? Not necessarily. Follow my logic here. In the years Goldham made the all star game based on merit, 1949 and 1952, we have the complete voting record for 49, but not 52. So, chances are Goldham would have another decent finish there in 52. Reise made the all star game on merit in 1951, 1952, and 1953. We don't have the complete voting record for any of these seasons. But, Reise was 4th in voting in 51. In 52 and 53, we have nothing beyond the top 4. So, I think it's reasonable to suspect that Reise has 2 pretty good finishes in those 2 seasons as well. So, Goldham is probably missing one good finish, and Reise is probably missing two. Add in the fact that Goldham finish came in a very weak year, I'm not sure if you can really call his record any better than Reise's. Offensively, neither one was particularly strong, but they both had a little offensive ability. Goldham's PPG is .263 over 650 games, and Reise's is .221 over 494 games. Goldham gets the advantage there. These two were actually teammates for a bit in Detroit. Both bring physicality to the table, but I think Reise brings a bit more. Both were also large players for their era. I'll give Goldham a slight edge as an overall player, but I don't think it's very large at all. I don't think they are 30 picks apart like they were picked this year.

Overall, 2nd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. What it comes down to is that the gap between Goodfellow and Ross is larger than the gap between Goldham and Reise(if such a gap even exists). Philadelphia's group is the more physical group as well.

I had Reise making all four games on merit, and Goldham making three or four on merit depending on where you want to draw the line in AST voting.

Quote:

With limited voting info available during a number of seasons in the 50s I tried to take a look at the merited all-stars on defense during that time period. The only additional thing I did was give SC-winner defensemen credit for seasons they finished as a First or Second Team All-Star.

Name

First Season

Last Season

Total GP

Merited All-Star Games

Total All-Star Games

Cup Wins

Doug Harvey

1948

1969

1113 GP

13

13

6

Red Kelly

1948

1967

1316 GP

9

9

8

Bill Quackenbush

1944

1956

744 GP

8

8

0

Bill Gadsby

1947

1966

1248 GP

8

8

0

Marcel Pronovost

1951

1969

1206 GP

7

11

5

Doug Mohns

1954

1975

1390 GP

7

7

0

Gus Mortson

1947

1959

797 GP

6

8

4

Fern Flaman

1948

1961

910 GP

6

6

1

Butch Bouchard

1942

1955

785 GP

5

6

4

Leo Reise

1947

1954

494 GP

4

4

2

Jack Stewart

1939

1952

565 GP

4

4

2

Jimmy Thomson

1947

1958

787 GP

4

7

4

Tom Johnson

1951

1965

978 GP

4

8

6

Allan Stanley

1949

1969

1244 GP

4

7

4

Ken Reardon

1941

1950

341 GP

3

3

1

Bob Goldham

1946

1956

650 GP

3

6

4

Glen Harmon

1943

1951

452 GP

2

2

2

Bob Armstrong

1953

1961

542 GP

1

1

0

Pat Egan

1941

1951

554 GP

1

1

0

Dollard St. Laurent

1952

1962

652 GP

1

5

5

-'51 and '52 All-Star Games were not played using SC winner format.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The new format had the First Team All-Stars and the Second Team All-Stars be the cores of the two teams playing in the all-star game, with the reserves for the First Team consisting of players on American-based teams and the Second Team reserves consisting of Habs and Leafs.

-By '53 the format was back to its original SC winner format.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below I have another table that shows the complete voting record of defenders given unmerited appearances. I believe some of these could be bumped up to being merited as well.

1947

Gus Mortson (TOR)

10th (0-0-1)

1948

Gus Mortson (TOR)

T8th* (0-0-2)

1948

Jimmy Thomson (TOR)

5th* (1-2-1)

1949

Jimmy Thomson (TOR)

6th* (0-3-1)

1954

Bob Goldham (DET)

5th* (21-)

1956

Dollard St. Laurent (MON)

T15th (2-)

1957

Tom Johnson (MON)

7th* (13-)

1960

Tom Johnson (MON)

5th* (39-35)

1962

Allan Stanley (TOR)

6th* (26-)

1963

Allan Stanley (TOR)

15th (2-)

I wasn't sure where to draw the arbitrary line here so I wanted to keep it outside the first table. We also only have these numbers for '54, '56, and '57 seasons during the 50s, so I didn't know if it would be fair to use more than the always present top four to draw the line. These amended rankings seem fair as all placed somewhere between 5th-8th during the post-season voting.

If you go to their HR pages and scroll down to all star games, you can click on the game and see if they were playing for the all star team, or the cup winner. The Red Wings(with Reise on their team) played the all stars in 1950, then there were two all star teams in '51 and '52, and in '53 Reise was on the team of all stars to play the cup winners.

Goldham played for the Leafs vs. the All Stars in '47, played for the All Stars vs. the Leafs in '49, played for the Red Wings vs. the All Stars in '50, played on one of the two all star teams in '52, and played for the Red Wings vs. the All Stars in 54 and 55.

Reise
'50 merited, despite playing for cup winning Wings as he a 2nd AST member
'51 and '52 only merited members made the game as the format changed
'53 merited, as a member of the all-stars against the cup winning Habs

Goldham
'47 unmerited, member of cup winning Maple Leafs
'49 merited, member of all-star team repping Blackhawks
'50 unmerited, member of cup winning Red Wings
'52 merited, all merited this year
'54 merited*, 5th in AST voting that year should make him a merited man
'55 merited, member of cup winning Red Wings but retains merit with 2nd AST spot

Okay, I didn't realize you were adjusting the merit of the naming to the all star team. But, my point still stands that Reise probably is missing two seasons of significant recognition in all star voting, and Goldham is probably only missing one.

Larson and Engblom is an interesting comparison. I took Reed significantly earlier, which was admittedly a bit of a mistake on my part. But, his offense, especially at ES, is very valuable here. Engblom has the AS and Norris record that Larson doesn't have though. Engblom is the better all around player, but if I'm given the choice of who to have on my 3rd pairing, I'm still taking Larson. Even though Engblom might be the better all around player. Larson's offense is so good for a 3rd pairing defenseman.

Ted Green is a great asset to have on a 3rd pairing. He'd be fine as a #4 defenseman in a 32 team draft. Green's Norris record is 3, 7, 9 and Smith's is 6, 8, 11 with the 11th being one point. Advantage Green. All star records are:

Green-3, 6, 6, 10
Smith-6, 6, 9, 17, 18*, 19, 23

*-one point

These guys are actually more similar than they seem. Green gets the decision here because of a better all star record, but the difference between these two is definitely not 217 picks. I think it's more of a matter of Smith deserves to move up, rather than Green moving down. One think to note is that the Boston coaches trusted Dallas Smith more on the PK than they did Ted Green. Also, Smith was trusted at ES a bit more than Green was. Here are their ES TOI finishes for the team when we have stats:

Green-1, 1, 2, 6
Smith-1, 1, 2, 3

Ted Green didn't play in the 69-70 season when the Bruins won the cup for whatever reason. But, when they both played in 71-72, Smith was the #1 defenseman at ES and Green was 6th, and Boston won the cup. Definitely something to think about that Smith was looked upon as being more reliable on the PK, and at ES. Green has better offensively, but again, I think Orr's tendencies held back Smith's offensive ability. Smith couldn't commit in the offensive zone and pinch because Orr was always pinching. Green was on a separate pairing, allowing him to be the guy that pinched. I'll still give Green a small advantage because of voting record and offense, but I think the fact that Smith was seen as more reliable at ES and on the PK really says something.

3rd pairings are an advantage to Chicago. Philadelphia's group will bring more offense due to the prowess of Larson, but his defensive shortcomings are what prevent our pairing from being better both offensively and defensively. But, don't be fooled. The difference between Ted Green and Dallas Smith is not that large.

I don't like using canon as the reason one guy is specifically better than another, but again, I don't see a way to compare Jiri Holecek and Tom Barrasso. Holecek was the 18th goalie selected, and Barrasso was the 31st goalie taken. I think you got good value on Barrasso where you selected him, but I think Holecek is the better goalie. I don't see either goalie playing a significant role in the series. Here's the post I had on Holecek in my first series, and the argument why some believe he was a better goalie than Tretiak:

Quote:

The biggest thing is that Holecek was voted the best goalie at the World Championships, and was elected to the World Championships all star team more often than Tretiak. He was elected the best goalie in the World Championships five times, whereas Tretiak only won the honor 3 times. Seth Martin won it four times, but in a highly questionable era in terms of competition. The only other player(of any position) to be named the best at the World Championships five times is Fetisov at defense. He was also named to the World Championships All-Star team 5 times to Tretiak's 3. His 5 elections is the most all-time among goalies. And Bobby Hull said he was the best goalie in the world, better than Tretiak and Dryden if that means anything.

Philadelphia has the advantage in goal. I never would have thought I would have a definitive edge in goaltending in both of my first two series, but I do.

I don't have much to say about coaching. I've accepted the fact that I'll probably have the worse coach in every matchup I have. But, I really don't think this is a problem. My team is not worried about matching up much against the other team. We'll try to keep Gordie Howe away from Ching Johnson, Marty Pavelich, and Reg Noble. That's basically it. But, we're not afraid of these matchups. If we can get Howe away from them, then Howe will feast on Tommy Smith and George Hay. If not, we're not terribly worried about it. I'd like to know how much Chicago plans on using Pavelich and his line as a shutdown line against my top 6(specifically Howe and Dye). If they plan on doing that a lot, I think it will really limit the effectiveness of the 2nd line, which includes possibly Chicago's 2nd and 3rd best offensive players. By playing the 3rd line often, it will mean less time for the offensive lines in the top 6. Also, Chicago's first line is the only other line they could pass off as a sort of checking line because of Reg Noble and Morenz at center. If they try to use them in a more defensive role, it will limit their offensive effectiveness as well.

We're comfortable having either the Salming or Goodfellow pairing facing Morenz/Cook. We really don't have much of a preference.

On to the actual coaches, Ivan is the better coach. He seemed to like to let the players play, and let them do what they like best. Ruff will basically be acting as a motivator to keep the guys playing hard, and consistent.

One thing I noticed in Fredrickson's bio is that he was rather high-strung and high-maintenance. So, I think you probably got a good coach for him in Ivan, who will let Frank be Frank, and let him play. He should be a good fit there.

Okay, I didn't realize you were adjusting the merit of the naming to the all star team. But, my point still stands that Reise probably is missing two seasons of significant recognition in all star voting, and Goldham is probably only missing one.

Oh for sure, those missing records are why I did that study. I wanted to see what players were being underrated by the incomplete picture we have for those 50s defenders.

Reise making it all four years on merit definitely supports your claim he had two more seasons of solid recognition.

That's true. I'm just honestly asking because I know very little about Holecek.

He was a big part of the Czechoslovak victories over the USSR in the 70s. My impression is that he usually outperformed Tretiak head to head and probably was the better goalie in the 70s. But based on domestic MVP voting, Tretiak may not have been in his peak until the early 80s, when Holecek was no longer a factor

Billy, just a question on Holecek as you've had him both of the last two years:

Is there a chance that Holecek received those awards because he was more valuable to Czech team, as opposed to Tretiak whose value was always going to be limited by those Soviet teams?

I don't think so. One thing that definitely could have contributed to Holecek winning the awards is that Holecek consistently played his best hockey on the international level against the Soviets. He always played his best hockey whenever he was playing the Soviets. So, the fact that the Czechs generally had success on the international stage against the Soviets probably made Holecek look like the better goalie because he outplayed Tretiak when they went to head to head. That could be why they thought Holecek was the better goalie, because when they played each other, Holecek usually played extremely well.

Don't sell the Czechs of the 70s short. They were the only other team in the 1970s to win a Gold Medal in the World Championships besides the Soviets. They won 3, in 1972, 1976, and 1977. It was the golden age of Czech hockey with Martinec, Novy, Hlinka, Nedomansky(for '72), Pospisil, Jiri Holik, and Jaroslav Holik(for '72). Those mid-70s Czech teams were probably the best they ever fielded internationally. So, it's not like the voters saw Holecek as the only bright spot on their team, so he looked like he was the best goalie(sort of like Hiller this past Olympics).